....... and digital art begin?
I ask this question mainly to start a bit of discussion. The picture to the right has had a fair bit of contrast enhancement done on it, but it is pretty true to the original as far as composition, colour and sharpness. But, I would say this may have over stepped that rather blurry line between what I consider a photograph, and what I consider digital art.
I have looked at many photos on Flickr, and 12 months ago I would have marvelled at how rich the colours were, or how amazingly sharp the image was. But now, I know better. Alot of ordinary photos, can be turned into extraordinary images by some digital shenanigans. Thus the (PSD) on some of my photos. That is a sign that I have given it a bit more than an Auto-Levels and Auto-Colours treatment.
I have heard the arguement regarding people not doing anything that you couldn't have done in the photo lab, but really, how many of the people could have?
Now I know I am sounding like your typical luddite, but I do have some concerns about this, mainly because alot of people don't know this is happening.
Is it right or wrong, I suggest most people don't care, but it certainly matters to me. I don't know where that blurry line is, but I would love to hear other peoples reactions.
norbs
Monday, September 11, 2006
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
I for one mark any photo I've made significant adjustments to with a "photoshop" tag (if I used photoshop, similarly for other software).
If one of my photos doesn't have that tag, then the most I've done to it is a crop and/or levels adjustment.
Sure you can make eye-popping photos easily enough but at least some of the joy of photography for me is to accurately reproduce what I saw.
I'd agree.
If it's more than cropping and small adjustment of levels, (or maybe making b/w) it probably deserves a "photoshop" tag. It's not hard to put a tag in. I think Photoshop adds itself to the EXIF data when a pic is saved anyway, but it will do that even if you're cropping or adjusting brightness.
I can and have done many adjustments in a darkroom. So I fall in the catagory of knowledge that does not have as much of an issue with "fixing" images in PS. 99% of the stuff I do in PS I would have done in a darkroom. I think a lot of people have an issue with this because PS represents a shift in the perseption of authenticity and indeed what it is to be a photographer. Without going too far into it, the debate becomes one of shifting power. From small groups of talented people with a skill set outside the grasp to the majority to one which by and large is accessable to anyone. Because everyone can do it, it seems to cheapen the results dispite the fact that many of these results are as good as a photographer 20 years ago would achive in a darkroom. I tend to way this debate not in terms of is the image "real", but does the image hold to the original concept. Is it still true to the original image? If it is, it should not matter how the image was manipulated, only that the end results are desireable, effective and honest. To those that put a PS disclaimer in there images, would you do the same for darkroom manipulation ?
Post a Comment